Your fact-checks will appear here
A court case that established the rule of absolute immunity for presidents from damages liability predicated on their official acts.
The federal courts initially rejected a sweeping claim that a former President is categorically immune from criminal prosecution, with a December 2023 D.C. Circuit decision and an earlier district-cou...
president can be sued in federal court for unofficial or private conduct, but is afforded broad immunity for official acts; the contours of criminal prosecution while in office remain unresolved and h...
and related privileges shape which lawsuits can proceed, which acts are insulated, and how courts balance separation-of-powers concerns against accountability; the law gives absolute civil immunity fo...
A patchwork of judicial rulings, scholarly arguments, and memoranda has shaped the narrow and contested precedents for holding former presidents criminally or civilly accountable: long recognized abso...
Courts have consistently refused to treat as absolute, applying a balancing test that weighs confidentiality against the needs of the justice system or and often ordering disclosure when a sufficient ...
Four legal tracks can produce enforceable civil money judgments against a sitting or former president: private civil suits in federal or state court where immunity does not apply, criminal restitution...
The Supreme Court’s civil-law precedents center on a binary: absolute immunity for official acts touching the “outer perimeter” of presidential duties, and no special immunity for unofficial or pre‑pr...
The Supreme Court created the Bivens cause of action in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents , then extended it only twice in the 1970s before sharply curtailing its reach in the 21st century; recent de...